9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Krasnoyarskoye, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. He temporarily resides in the village of Kalinovka, the Vinnytsia region, Ukraine.
10.  The circumstances of the case, as relevant to the complaints declared admissible, may be summarised as follows.
11.  On 2 September 1988 the applicant lodged complaints with the Dobropolye City Court (the “DCC”) against the Belitskaya Mining Company (“Imeni XXI syezda KPSS”) in Dobropolye (the “Belitskaya Mine”), and the Dobropolskiy communal farm (“Sovkhoz Dobropolskiy”), seeking compensation for the damage caused to his house by the work of underground mining machines.
12.  Between September 1988 and May 1998, the case was examined on a number of occasions by the DCC and the Donetsk Regional Court (the “DRC”).
13.  By a judgment of 30 May 1994, the DCC declared the defendants liable for the damage caused to the applicant’s house. It ordered them to build a new house for the applicant, equivalent to that which had been damaged, by 1 July 1995, and to pay him compensation. The DCC held that the new house had to measure 76,64 square meters and had to include three rooms for habitation, utility rooms (підсобні приміщення) and outdoor premises (надвірні приміщення) on the plot of 0,25 hectare, surrounded by a fence. It also ordered the payment to the applicant and his wife of 2,627,925 karbovantsi, each, in compensation for the damage to certain property which had been in the original house, as well as costs for expert examinations and State taxes. In particular, the DCC ruled that:
“ The Belitskaya mine and Dobropolskiy communal farm, in respective shares, [are] to ensure the restitution for pecuniary damage in kind by building him a house measuring 76,64 square meters on the plot of 0,25 hectares, to be composed of two bedrooms, a living room and auxiliary rooms – a kitchen, hall, bathroom and toilet; outdoor premises: a lobby/porch, basement and garage; support premises: a summer kitchen, premises for domestic animals, birds, storage space for food, coal and wood; a fence surrounding the plot with an additional asphalt cover for the yard and green plantations around the house; to be completed before 1 July 1995.
[Orders] the Belitskaya Mine and the Dobropolskiy communal farm to pay the applicant and his wife, each, 2,627,925 karbovantsi in compensation for the damage caused to their property...”
14.  On 11 July 1994, the DRC upheld the judgment of 30 May 1994, which, that same day, became final.
15.  Contested enforcement proceedings ensued after the defendants failed to comply with the judgment of 30 May 1994. Two key decisions were as follows:
- first, that of the DCC on 14 November 1996, upholding the judgment in the applicant’s favour and ordering the defendants to reimburse the applicant, before 14 February 1997, UAH 70,054.70 for his expenses relating to the construction of a new house;
- secondly, that of the DRC on 13 January 1997, upholding the preceding decision, which thereby became final and enforceable.
16.  On 10 September 1997 the Presidium of the DRC allowed the protest of the Acting Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region, quashed the decisions of 14 November 1996 and 13 January 1997, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the DCC.
17.  On 15 May 1998 the Prosecutor General lodged a new protest with the Supreme Court, seeking the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant’s case. By a Resolution of 10 June 1998, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 30 May 1994 given in the applicant’s favour. It remitted the case to the DCC for fresh consideration. In particular, it stated that, in finding that the defendants had to build the applicant a new house, the courts had not specified in what way the original building had been defective. It also held that the award of compensation did not correspond to the actual level of inflation or the current price of construction and construction expenditures.
18.  On 7 June 1999 the DCC decided not to consider the applicant’s claims as he failed to appear in court on 16 November and 7 December 1998, 9 February, 16 March, 19 April, and 4 and 17 May 1999.
19.  On 1 September 1999 the Presidium of the DRC allowed the protest of its President and quashed the ruling of 7 June 1999, remitting the case for a fresh consideration to the same court. The Presidium also gave a separate ruling as to the length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case and noted the fact that the applicant had not been duly informed about the hearings and, therefore, had been unable to attend them.
20.  On 25 February 2000 the parties failed to appear before the DCC. On the same date the DCC decided not to consider the applicant’s claims because of his absence. On 2 August 2000 the President of the DRC allowed the protest of his Deputy and quashed this ruling, the case being again remitted for a fresh consideration.
21.  The case was re-examined on a number of occasions (see Timotiyevich v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 63158/00, 18 May 2004). By decisions of 13 April and 24 May 2001, the DCC adjourned the proceedings due to the applicant’s failure to appear before it. On 18 June 2001 the applicant again failed to appear before the DCC. As a result, the DCC did not consider the applicant’s substantive claims and the proceedings were finally terminated. The applicant did not appeal.
22.  On 19 June 2001 the applicant requested the DCC to suspend the proceedings in his case due to the consideration of his application by the European Court of Human Rights.